SIR – Your leader on how the world has changed in the ten years since the attacks of September 11th 2001 only touched upon the mistakes made by the United States in the Middle East over the past decade (“Ten years on”, September 3rd). The way for America to improve its standing in the Middle East is very straightforward: match its deeds to its rhetoric and keep its promises.

Thus, if the United States says it supports democracy in the Arab world then it must do so in word and action across the entire region, and not selectively support popular demands here or there while remaining quiet when pro-Western governments crack down on people's protests or, as happened in Algeria in the early 1990s, balk when political players emerge who are not to Washington's liking.

The same holds for the Arab-Israeli conflict. If America truly supports peace and a two-state solution then it must push all parties, and push them hard, to come to the table and be willing to compromise. The core of America's poor reception in the Arab world today has less to do with antagonism towards Western values and more to do with the perception that Washington's policies are hypocritical.

Fares GhneimMadaba, Jordan

The Monnet programme

SIR – The suggestion that the crisis in the euro zone shows the limits of Jean Monnet's approach to Europe is surely incorrect (Charlemagne, September 3rd). The essence of Monnet's approach was that each step in European integration must make sense in its own terms, in other words, each step would solve a problem facing countries that they could not address adequately on their own, and also contribute towards the longer-term goal. At any point a member state can decide that it has gone far enough and take no further steps.

In the case of the present crisis, if European Union member states borrowed money collectively it would lower their borrowing costs and restore some stability to the international bond market, a good idea by any standards. You don't have to be a federalist to see the sense in this.

Richard LamingChairFederal UnionLondon

A pertinent question-mark

SIR – Given the turmoil that Yahoo! is currently experiencing, and its uncertain future, I suggest the company be rebranded as Yahoo? (“Portal exit”, September 10th). After all, relevance is a key characteristic in its business.

Gregory BlainParis

All aboard for HS2

SIR – Your report on the government's plans for high-speed rail (HS2) made a number of assertions that are simply not backed up by the facts (“Railroad to nowhere”, September 3rd). For example, you claimed that existing rail services to towns such as Crewe and Rugby “will also be hit” if HS2 is built. But the modelling assumptions we have published make it clear that we expect train services to Crewe and Rugby to increase; services to Milton Keynes could double as a result of the released capacity provided by HS2.

You also implied that capacity can be painlessly increased by enhancing our creaking network. This is fantasy. The west-coast line is already the busiest mixed-use rail line in Europe: the scope for further gains is comparatively small and will not provide the capacity over the medium term. Given that the west-coast line will soon be full, if HS2 is not built travellers from places like Coventry and Milton Keynes may find that they can barely get on trains in peak hours in the future.

As for your assertion that regional cities will lose out if they are given better connections to the capital, perhaps we should let regional business leaders be the judge of that. The fact is that they and their civic counterparts have been crystal clear in their overwhelming support for high-speed rail. The inexorable logic of your argument is that prosperity for regional cities can only be assured by isolation. That is not a credible blueprint for building a sustainably competitive economy.

Philip Hammond, MPSecretary of state for transportLondon

SIR – The question is not whether Britain should adopt high-speed rail, but when. Your claim that high-speed rail exacerbates regional divisions and does little to promote economic development is wrong-headed. Of course there will be winners and losers in the new rail project. That was also true of the development of the 19th-century rail network. But you only have to study the experience of Japan, France, Spain and Germany to see the benefits that a high-speed rail network can bring. The idea that Britain is different is another example of the curse of British exceptionalism.

Adam RaphaelLondon

* SIR – We were perplexed by your views on high-speed rail. You wrote that it “rarely pays its way” ("The great train robbery", September 3rd). In the sense of project finance, and over standard time horizons, it is the norm rather than the exception that transport projects do not pay for themselves. Transport projects are usually evaluated in terms of net social value, a standard concept in economics. The question is whether social returns from high-speed rail are high enough to justify investment. Generally the answer is resoundingly yes. Even the new proposed high-speed line in Britain has been shown to yield a benefit-cost ratio of around two-to-one.

Holding down constructions costs is the key. Perhaps that should be the focus of your ire, notably but not only within the British context.

* SIR – I am very doubtful whether your correspondent actually got off the train at Stoke-on-Trent. There are no boarded-up windows or pound stores around our wonderful mid-Victorian terminus. Instead, there is a heroic statue of Josiah Wedgwood, a buzzing university campus and a new Sixth Form Centre.

Where your metropolitan interloper is right is that north Staffordshire needs to gain from the high-speed project, rather than have its Manchester-London service imperilled. The region encompassing Stoke, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Crewe serves a far larger demographic than York and yet it is being excluded from the benefits of HS2. The transport secretary needs to commit to a stop at Stoke at the earliest opportunity. And then more and more students, businesspeople, and even journalists from The Economist could alight at Stoke-on-Trent.

Tristram HuntMember of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central

* SIR – In Germany the high-speed ICE (Inter City Express) trains not only cut travelling time, they are an environmentally friendly way of moving from one place to another. Tickets need not be expensive when booked in advance. No one would want to go back to the era before high speed when a trip from Hamburg to Munich took nine hours (today, it is less than six). Isn't it high time for the British to enjoy this kind of rail travel, too?

Michael StorfnerHamburg* SIR – Using high-speed lines of freight trains would make the service profitable. The German high-speed rail network runs 100mph freight trains during the night. That helps to decongest motorways during the day. If Britain wants (once more) to be a manufacturing country then it will be necessary to move products from one place to another in a short time. So far lorries have been the favoured vehicles for this purpose. Freight trains provide a viable alternative.

George NielsenThe Hague, the Netherlands* SIR – Your views on high-speed rail made excellent sense. When I go skiing I get off the plane at Geneva and go to the railway station, which is in the same building as the airport. There I buy a ticket to an obscure village in the mountains and over the counter with my ticket comes a printout, the same size as a boarding card, with my personal timetable on it. I take a train equivalent to a west-coast Pendolino to a town 300kms away in the Alps.

As timetabled, when I get off that train, the narrow-gauge railway-train that I must take next is waiting for me at a nearby platform and leaves five minutes later. When I get off the narrow-gauge railway in the mountains about an hour later, the bus that will take me to my obscure village is waiting for me beside the station exactly as timetabled. The same ticket is valid on both of the trains and on the bus and takes me all the way to my destination.

When I arrive, I ask the driver if he knows the chalet where I have booked a room. He doesn't, but he immediately phones the tourist office and he then points it out to me on the slopes 500 metres away.

Imagine the difference this kind of service would make to someone travelling from Heathrow to Malham in Yorkshire. Imagine the difference it would make to provincial business in general, equally the difference it would make to the tourist industry. Now imagine the difference planned high-speed rail would make to Heathrow–Malham. No contest.

Paul BeardmoreLondon

Planning your Christmas?

SIR – Your article on the United States Postal Service suggested that sending electronic Christmas cards over the internet is more “green” (“Neither snow nor rain”, August 20th). I take issue with that. When you take into account the entire life cycle of a piece of paper versus what it takes to send an e-card, it becomes clear that there is no environmental benefit to going paperless. Consider the energy and resource-intensive process required to produce a computer: extensive mining and refining operations of dozens of minerals and metals, many of which are not recyclable and will inevitably end up in a landfill once the device is rendered obsolete by the next generation of computer, tablet or smartphone. Add to that the carbon-generated electricity needed to power computers.

Contrast that with paper, which is one of the most recycled products; last year 63% of all paper purchased in the United States was recovered for recycling. In addition, more than 60% of the energy used to manufacture paper is generated on site from carbon-neutral biomass and recovered materials from the papermaking process. In fact, many of America's paper mills are entirely energy self-sufficient.

Stefan NowickiDomtar Paper CompanyFort Mill, South Carolina

A dose of medicine

* SIR – Your story on pharmaceutical shortages highlighted the public-health implications of a business model gone wrong (“Coming up short”, September 3rd). In the post-blockbuster drug era, the pharmaceutical industry has an opportunity to reframe its contract with society: to provide drugs that people need at prices that society is willing and able to pay.

This is a two-way dialogue. Companies have to show how their renewed focus on R&D will yield innovative drugs that can fill unmet medical needs. And in today's era of austerity, they now face an equal if not greater challenge: how to demonstrate to a sceptical audience (of investors, policymakers, payers and patients) how their drugs offer value for money.

But if they are to do this, companies will need much better guidance and advice from those that ultimately foot the bill for their products. Policymakers, payers and patient groups also share in the responsibility of fixing pharmaceutical R&D and drug manufacturing. Companies need to know which therapeutic areas society most values, and what price it will be prepared to pay for different therapies. Without the right incentives and without clearer signals, pharmaceutical companies will play safe rather than develop drugs for diseases where the science is complex and the commercial outlook is challenging.

Sophia TickellFounderMeteosOxford

The Thai government

* SIR - With reference to your article on Thailand's new government (“Yingluck to the fore”, August 13th), I wish to set a few facts straight especially on those concerning the Thai monarchy.

First and foremost, Thailand is a democracy with a constitutional monarchy. As clearly stipulated in our constitutions to date, the monarchy, while highly revered, is above partisan politics. Therefore, to conclude that the Thai monarchy has taken sides in politics and to use such terms as “patron”, “partnership” and “royalist elites” is misleading. The Economist should be conscious that there are certain political groups that try to enhance their credibility by aligning themselves with the monarchy and draw the institution into politics for their political gain.

Secondly, by comparing the kingdom of Thailand to imperial China, The Economist demonstrated that it has lost its finesse of an in-depth analysis and a thorough understanding of histories and social contexts of the chosen countries. It should be noted that, throughout the years, their Majesties and other members of the Thai royal family have worked on innumerable projects mostly in remote areas to help improve the well-being of the Thai people.

Lastly, Thailand's monarchy has continuously evolved for over 700 years and will remain the kingdom's main pillar of stability and strength. All Thais, irrespective of their political choices, share an unwavering respect for the monarchy. While his majesty the king's reign has been exceptional, it is presumptuous to speculate about the heir apparent based on rumours and hearsay.

SIR – I used to throw back a shot every time I read the phrase “soaring rhetoric” in an article about Barack Obama, but I eventually kicked the habit. Perhaps you should consider doing the same (Lexington, August 27th).

Russ RossSt George, Utah

A new word order

SIR – I must object in the strongest terms to the use of the oxymoronic neologism, “bottomless shallows”, in a Banyan column (August 27th). Please inform your Mr Banyan that oxymorons must be stamped out wherever found, and are particularly galling in a newspaper of your standing and heritage. I am certain that Messrs Samuel Johnson, Walter Bagehot and Henry Watson Fowler are all spinning in their respective graves at this slight, albeit at different speeds.

You know well how lapses like this affect school truancy, foment social disorder and encourage a preference for margarine on one's scones. Sin not again.